Sharing the Incarnation:
Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological
Leadership
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
Corné J. Bekker, D. Litt. et Phil.
School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship
Regent University
Virginia Beach VA, USA
This paper proposes an early mimetic Christological model of Christian Leadership in Roman Philippi
by exploring the judicial, rhetorical structure and the social function of the Philippians hymn (2:5-11)
as a cursus pudorum (course of ignominies) that stands in stark contrast to a cursus honorum, the
formalized sequence of public offices in first-century Roman cities. The Philippians hymn challenged
the notions and principles of the prevalent shame/honor social matrix of Roman societies by offering
an alternative set of behaviors and values that stood in stark contrast with those of the dominant
culture. The hymn makes use of a cursus pudorum in which the voluntary abasement, humility and
obedience of Christ becomes an exemplum that offers a critique of the tyrannies of the timocratic
leadership style of Roman Philippi and offers an alternative vision of service oriented leadership
rooted in humility and common mutuality.
Introduction
The myriad scholarly discussions on the Christological hymn (compare the excellent overview
of the literature on this text in Martin 1997) in the letter of Paul to the Philippians (2:5-11) have
traditionally been occupied with the issues of ontological Christology (Hellerman 2003, 424),
questions on authorship (Martin 1997, 42-62) and literary form and function (Black, 1995); with little
or no agreement amongst scholars on these issues (Stagg 1980, 340). Recent studies have
attempted to escape the inertia created in these studies by exploring the hymn as an ethical rhetorical
device and paradigm (Fowl 1990, Geoffrion 1993), as mediating tool in the midst of communal
disunity and strife (Peterlin 1995, Williams 2002), as social drama (Karris, 1996, Wortham 1996),
2
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
and as resistance against local timocratic1 rule (Heen 2004, Hellerman 2003, and Oakes 2001). What
these recent developments have in common is a determined effort to place the hymn within the social
and cultural context of first-century Philippi and the consensus that the hymn is a religious response to
the tyranny of local Roman ruler and leadership. This opens the door for scholars to explore the hymn
as an alternative and exemplary model (a rhetorical exemplum 2) of ethical leadership rooted in a firstcentury, mimetic Christological spirituality. This paper proposes an early mimetic Christological model
of Christian Leadership in Philippi by exploring the judicial, rhetorical structure and the social function
of the hymn as a cursus pudorum 3.
Philippians 2:5-11 as early Christian Hymn
Philippians 2:5-7 has traditionally been identified as a hymn because of the clear linguistic
differences with the rest of the text of letter (Gloer 1984:125), the occurrence and use of rhythmic
and symmetric parallelisms (Fitzmeyer 1998, 470), the use of chiasmus (Black 1995, 37), the use of
antithesis (Gloer 1984:127), the participial style (Gloer 1984, 127), the use of the relative clause in
Greek (Gloer 1984, 128), and the arrangement of the hymn in strophe (McLeod 2001, 308). The
strophic arrangement of the text suggests that the hymn had its origin in a liturgical setting (Briggs
1989:142) and Church historians have argued that hymns like these were the primary form of
theological and communal expression of the primitive church (Gloer 1984, 120). Communal hymns in
the early Christian communities had a three-fold function: they were employed in mutual teaching of
new converts by antiphonal singing (Bruce and Simpson 1957, 285), they were the preferred medium
of theological training (Selwyn 1969, 274) and they served as mnemonic, pedagogical devices in the
formation of communal members (Guthrie, 1970, 551).
Building on these structural insights mentioned above, scholars have argued that the hymn is
very early in the formation of the Christian community (Stagg 1980, 337; Hamm 1997, 31; Harrington
2006, 1), probably Pre-Pauline (Fitzmeyer 1988, 471; Howard 1978, 368), Aramaic in origin (at
minimum Semitic) and clearly a composition of Jewish-Christian origin (Martin 1997, 39-41, Fitzmeyer
1988, 483). Some writers have even gone as far as to propose that the hymn is the oldest
Christological reflection in the Christian Scriptures and that it originated in the generation immediately
following the death and resurrection of Jesus , thus around 56-60 C.E. (McClendon 1991, 439). Other
scholars have illustrated that the hymn falls squarely within the example and genre of Jewish Psalms
in the first-century (Collins 2002:362). This claim finds support when one compares the psalmody of
Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity as mentioned in the writings of Philo of Alexandria4 (On
1
As in a timocracy, where a love of honor ostensibly operates as a ruling governmental principle.
A rhetorical term referring to the use of a citation of an example, either truthful or fictitious.
A course of ignominies, in stark contrast to a cursus honorum, the formalized sequence of public offices that marked out the
prescribed social pilgrimage for aspiring senatorial aristocrats in Rome and which was replicated in miniature in municipalities and in
voluntary associations in Roman cities, such as Philippi.
4
20 BCE to 40 CE
2
3
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
3
the Contemplative life 80), Josephus 5 (Apion 1.40 and Antiquity 2.346; 7.364, 7.305) and Tertulian 6
(Apology 39). Further analogies for the hymn can also be found in the literature of the first-century, i.e.
in the Qumran Literature7 such as 11Q Melchizedek and 4Q Ages of Creation (Sanders 1969, 290).
The Social Situation of the early Christian Community of Philippi
Several recent studies (compare Hellerman 2003, Horsley 2004, Peterlin 1995 and Wortham
1996) have focused on the social location of the early Christian community in Philippi to whom Paul
addressed his letter. From these studies we can conclude, that Philippian church was fairly large in
size (Peterlin 1995, 169), that it consisted of a cross-section of the various social strata of what was
at that time a typical, highly stratified Roman community (Wortham 1996, 281), that there is good
evidence that many of the members of the community came from the upper echelons of the social
ranking order (Peterlin 1995, 170), that the community experienced substantial inner and outer
communal and religious conflict (Wortham 1996. 281), and that some of this communal conflict arose
from the an apparent values conflict between the Christian call for humble service and the Philippians’
cultural value of pursuing public social honor (see Hellerman 2003, 328). Hellerman (2003, 328)
provides convincing evidence for the social verticality in Philippi: “Epigraphic testimonials to the social
status of individuals abound in and around Philippi to a degree unparalleled elsewhere in the empire.
Those who enjoyed positions of honor had an incessant desire to proclaim publicly their status in the
form of inscriptions erected throughout the colony.” Dio Chrystostum8, a Greek historian of the Roman
Empire during that time, explains that the motivation that drove the elite within Roman society to
pursue public status was “not for the sake of what is truly best and in the interest of their country
itself, but for the sake of reputation and honors and the possession of greater power than their
neighbors, in the pursuit of crowns and precedence and purple robes, fixing their gaze upon these
things and staking all upon their attainment” (Orationes 34.29).
Hellerman (2003,421-433) proposes that the Philippians hymn functions in this context as a
cursus pudorum (a course of ignominies), standing in stark contrast to the socially pervasive and
accepted practice of a cursus honorum, the formalized sequence of public offices that marked out the
prescribed social pilgrimage for those aspiring to public status and acclaim in first-century Roman
societies. Building on the anthropological and sociological insights of Victor Turner, Mary Douglas and
Gerd Theissen, Wortham (1996, 281-282) suggests that the hymn functions as a kind of social drama
that unites and calls for an inversion in the early Christian community in Philippi of the social values
that they faced daily in this highly-stratified and socially competitive Roman community: “…the image
of Christ preserved in the Philippians Hymn (2:5-11) may function as a symbol of unity, providing
social identity and legitimation for members of a new religious movement in much the same manner
5
37-100 CE
155-230 CE
7
Around 150 BCE to 68 CE
8
40-120 CE
6
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
4
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
as the emperor, in the ruler cult, symbolized the unity of Roman Society.” This social reading of the
Philippians hymn in the work of Wortham (1996) and Hellerman (2003) focus on the hymn as social
drama that aims to resolve the social and values conflict that this early Christian community
experienced through a “rites de passage” with contrasting subplots of status reversal and elevation.
This social drama can be illustrated as follows in the text of the Philippians Hymn:
Figure 1:
The Philippians Hymn as Social Drama
Purity
Normal State
2:5
Let the same mind be in you
that was in Christ Jesus,
Status
2:6
Reversal
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God as
something to be exploited,
Pollution
Mounting Crises
2:7
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
2:8
he humbled himself
and became obedient
to the point of death
even death on a cross.
Purity
Containment & Status
Resolution
2:9
Elevation
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
2:10
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth
and under the earth,
2:11
and every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
The plots of status reversal and elevation so evident in the social drama of the Philippians
hymn served to protest the tyrannies of the local timocratic9 leadership of the Roman emperor daily in
song (Heen 2004, 150-153) through a call for radical values reversal and symbolic inversion that
9
As in a timocracy, where a love of honor ostensibly operates as a ruling governmental principle.
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
5
provided the impetus for the construction of alternative social classifications and leadership style in
the early Christian community of Philippi. Collins (2002, 372) reads the hymn as a call to “honor Jesus
Christ instead of the Emperor” and in doing so redefined the manner in which honor and power were
to be utilized among the Christians at Philippi (Hellerman 2003).
The Rhetorical Structure and Function the Philippians Hymn
The rhetorical category of the Philippians hymn, that has traditionally been identified as a
pure Christological and ethical expression (Wortham 1996, 269), is clearly part of a larger judicial
document (Black 1995, 46). Kennedy (1984, 23-24) explains the rhetorical structure and function of
a judicial speech as follows: “A judicial speech usually begins with a proem or exordium which seeks
to obtain the attention of the audience and goodwill or sympathy toward the speaker. It then proceeds
to a narration of the facts, or background information, and states the proposition which the speaker
wishes to prove, often with a partition of it into separate headings. The speaker then presents his
arguments in the proof, followed by a refutation of opposing views; here he may incorporate what was
called a digression, often a relevant examination of motivations or attendant circumstances. Finally
comes an epilogue or peroration, which summarizes the argument and seeks to arouse the emotions
of the audience to take action or make judgment.” 10
Building on the insights of Black (1995, 48) and Kennedy (1984, 23-24) the rhetorical
structure of the letter to the Philippians can be illustrated as follows:
Figure 2:
The Rhetorical Structure of Philippians
1:1-2
Epistolary Prescript
1:3-11
Exordium
1:12-26
Narratio
1:27-3:21
Argumentatio
1:27-30
Propositio
2:1-30
Probatio
Three exempla:
Christ (2:5-11)
Timothy (2:19-24)
Epaphroditus (2:25-30)
3:1-21
Refutatio
4:1-9
Peroratio
4:10-20
Narratio
4:21-23
10
Epistolary Postscript
Emphasis mine.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
6
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
The entire hymn may be regarded as a chiasm that further serves to sharper the rhetorical
function of the hymn as an exemplum:
Figure 3:
A
The Chiastic Structure of the Philippians Hymn
Christ Jesus is God (vv 5-6a)
B
He descended to earth and became subservient to humanity (vv 6b-7)
C
B’
A’
He died a horrible death (v 8)
He ascended to heaven and became superior to humanity (v 9)
Jesus Christ is acknowledge as God (vv 10-11)
It is clear from the structures above that the Philippians hymn has a larger rhetorical function
in the epistle and that the function of the hymn, at least as it has been preserved and used by Paul, is
clearly and deliberately linked to the social situation of Philippi. Black (1995, 46) echoes this
sentiment as he attempts to place the letter squarely in the context of communal and leadership
conflict in Philippi: “The various parts of the letter are not a random accumulation of general precepts
but are relevant to a situation in which differences between key leaders in the Philippian church have
provoked animosities and contempt.”
The hymn therefore functions as an exemplum within the epistle, with a strong paradigmatic
appeal (Stagg 1980, 340), and thus serves together with the rest of the epistle as an ethical call
(Cousar 1998:46) to the community members to emulate the values and leadership behaviors of
Christ (Peterlin 1995, 66). Black (1995, 37) echoes this sentiment when he writes that “the emphasis
here is not paranetic11 but ethical, with the conduct of Christ as the ultimate of Christian
behavior” and thus the hymn becomes the paradigm “for the life and ethics of the believing
community” (Cousar 1998, 46) addressed to “Christians who were tempted to be unloving, divisive,
selfish, arrogant, and overly concerned about their own rights” (MacLeod 2001, 310).
The Philippians Hymn as Mimetic Christological Model of Christian Leadership in the early Christian
Community of Roman Philippi.
11
Paranetic material is practical teaching that flows from doctrinal material or theology.
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
7
The hymn starts with a call to mimetic focus and behavior (Hamm 1997:31) modeled on the
values and behavior of Christ. The opening words of the hymn as a call to imitate (τοῦτο φρονεῖτε)
should be read as referring to social relations and, therefore, to ethical behavior (Black 1995, 37). We
concur with the Moule’s rendering of this verse as (1970, 265): “adopt toward one another in your
mutual relations, the same attitude which was found in Christ Jesus.” At it most basic mimesis is the
ability to imitate or represent someone or something in our actions, speech and general behavior
(Parris 2002, 39). Several thinkers have convincingly argued that the cognitive function of mimesis
allows us to recognize the “reality” of that which is being mimicked (Parris 2002, 44) and thus gaining
further knowledge, knowing “more than is already familiar” (Gadamer 1989, 245-246). Gadamer
(1986, 64) argues: “All true imitation is a transformation that does not simply present again
something that is already there. It is a kind of transformed reality in which the transformation points
back to what has been transformed in and through it. It is a transformed reality because it brings
before us intensified possibilities never seen before.” This call to “imitate” Jesus, who is then shown
as Divine in the hymn (2:6), is thus a call in a sense to “imitate God”. The idea of the
“mimesis/imitation of God” is not a concept that is “uniquely or originally Christian” (Heintz 2004,
107) and although it is found nowhere in the Septuagint12 or the Christian pseudopigrapha 13; it has
been shown to be part of the “philosophical koine14” (Heintz 2004, 117) of the Hellenistic and Roman
world (compare similar language in the Epistle to Diogenetus15 10:4, Platonic texts of Phaedrus 16
176b and Theaetetus17 252-253, and Philo of Alexandria’s De Migratione Abrahami 127-130) . What
is new and surprising is the call to imitate the lowly and humble crucified Savior by using a cursus
pudorum instead of the usual call to imitate the glories of the Roman Emperor with the use of a cursus
honorum.
The cursus pudorum in the hymn lists five ignominies of Christ that within the contexts of the
hymn as a rhetorical exemplum becomes aspired communal values: kenosis 18, servant posturing,
embracing humanity, humility and obedience. These values are found as descriptions of deliberate
actions of status and role reversal in keep with the social and rhetorical function of the hymn. The
following table illustrates:
Table 1: Deliberate Actions of Status Reversal in the Philippians Hymn
Kenosis
Servant Posturing
Embracing
Humility
Obedience
12
Greek Translation of the Old Testament.
Books that were falsely attributed to a famous character from the Bible.
14
Common language.
15
Late Second Century Christian Apologetic text.
16
15 BCE to 50 CE
17
427-347 BCE
18
From the Greek word ”kenao” which means to empty out.
13
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
8
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
Humanity
“but emptied
“taking the form
“being born in
“he humbled
“and became
himself”
of a slave”
human likeness.
himself”
obedient to the
(2:7)
(2:7)
And being found
(2:8)
point of death
in human form”
even death on a
(2:7)
cross”
(2:8)
“ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν
“μορφὴν δούλου
“ἐν ὁμοιώματι
“ἐταπείνωσεν
“γενόμενος
ἐκένωσεν”
λαβών”
ἀνθρώπων
ἑαυτὸν”
ὑπήκοος μέχρι
γενόμενος”
θανάτου”
Since the hymn functions as an exemplar to an alternative vision for ethical leadership in the
early Christian community in Philippi (Black 1995, 46) it would be logical to use these steps in
ignominies or active values to construct a model of an early mimetic Christological approach of
Christian leadership in Philippi. The proposed model can be illustrated as follows:
Figure 4: A Christological Model of Christian Leadership in the Philippians Hymn
Place of
Privilege
Status
Reversal
Active/Voluntary
Passive /Divine
Behavior by Leader
Kenosis/
Selfemptying
Servant
Posturing
Exaltation & Glorification
Embracing
Humanity
Humility
Obedience
Mimesis
Jesus Christ
Kenosis (“But emptied Himself”)
Discussions on the nature of the kenotic actions of Christ in the Philippians hymn have been
vast and wide (Silva 1992, 125). Martin (1997, 169-194) discusses seven distinctly different
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
9
interpretations, all which could be “plausible defended” (Silva 1992, 125). We are off the opinion that
the kenosis that the hymn speaks of refers to the relinquishment of “privilege not essence” (Stagg
1980, 344) and it seems that this verb (ἐκένωσεν) is used this way in the Septuagint 19 (compare
Genesis 24:20 and 2 Chronicles 24:11). Thus one should not read this phrase as meaning that Christ
emptied himself of His deity, but rather of the prerogatives of deity (MacLeod 2001, 318). This is
echoed by a saying attributed to Thomas Aquinas 20: “He emptied Himself, not by laying down the
divine nature, but by taking human nature.” But in order to explore the meaning of this phrase in the
proposed mimetic model we will mostly keep to the social and rhetorical function of this statement as
part of an exemplum and focus on what this would mean in an alternative vision of Christian
leadership.
Linking the “self-emptying and receptivity” of Christ in the Philippians hymn and seeing it as
the “point of intersection where divinity and humanity meet” (Gau 2000, 406) opens the door to
explore the values of this radical giving up of status and privilege. The values of kenosis have been
described as, voluntary self-limitation (Barbour 1990, 224), vulnerability (Barbour 1990, 224), present
to the “other” (Baker 270, 320), voluntary powerlessness (Szabolcs 2003, 10), continual purification
from self-centeredness (Szabolcs 2003, 10), humility (Papanikolaou 2003, 1), self-sacrifice
(Papanikolaou 2003, 1), and openness to the “other” (Szabolcs 2003, 10). In this light, kenosis
addresses the true challenge of dialogical leadership behavior (Szabolcs 2003,10) and as
appropriated in the Christian past was often rooted in a mimetic re-enactment of the selfemptying/kenotic Christ (Karecki and Wroblewski 2000, 12-13), interpreted mostly through readings
of the Philippians hymn (Kourie 1993, 127). Thus kenosis was often seen as a mystical communion
with the kenotic Christ (Ledoux 1997, 40) that leads to personal transformation of both the leader and
follower and enabled them to practice kenosis/self-emptying as Christ did. This “resolute divesting” of
the prestige and power inherent in the leadership transaction (Cronin 1992, 1) enables the leader and
follower enter into a new union that is marked by equality and service. The missiologist, Yves Raguin
(1973, 112) building on these precepts, argues that “kenosis, then, is the gateway to mutual
understanding, and beyond this, to an intimate sharing that is the consummation of a relationship in
union….By dispossession of self we are able to absorb the amazing riches of others.”
The values of kenosis allow the leader to transcend narrow selfhood (Kourie 1993, 124), to
locate the “other” in the mutuality of love (Fiddes 2001, 175) and to truly enter into the world of the
follower where the leader becomes the servant of the “other” (Szabolcs 2003, 10). This is a state of
mutual acceptance (Fiddes 2001, 175), vulnerability (Wisniewski 2003, 11) and receptivity as Raguin
(1973, 111) further explains: “…kenosis, then, places us in a state of receptivity. We develop an
instinctive attitude of listening, trying to understand, letting ourselves be permeated with the
19
20
Greek Translation of the Old Testament.
1225-1274 CE
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
10
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
atmosphere of our surroundings, passing beyond what is merely heard and seen to reach the
personality of the people with whom we love, or those we may meet.”
This overcoming of the separation between leader and follower finds it deepest dimension in kenotic
love and self-sacrifice (Papanikolaou 2003, 12) that negates the “dream of separateness” (Merton
1996, 156) as Söring (2003:162) rightly observes that “the connection between kenosis and service
runs far deeper that a mere recognition of the divine spark in our broken, anguished brothers and
sisters: taken to its ultimate conclusion, self-emptying must logically lead to self-sacrifice.”
Servant Posturing (“taking the form of a slave”)
In the Philippians hymn, Christ empties Himself by taking the forms of a slave (δούλου). He
thus becomes a person without social advantage, with little or no rights or privileges of His own, for
the determined purpose of placing Himself completely at the service of others (MacLeod 2001, 321).
The hymn makes use of several strong terms to encourage the Christian community not to succumb to
the temptations of aspiring to the social values and stratification so prevalent in Roman Philippi. Most
striking is the use of the terms slave (δούλου) and cross (σταυροῦ); which represents respectively, “the
most dishonorable public status and the most dishonorable public humiliation imaginable in the world
of Roman antiquity21” (Hellerman 2003, 424).
It is important that the exemplum here does not speak of mere service, but the radical quest
to take the form of a slave. Framing Jesus as a slave was “to assign to Him a position of greatest
opprobrium22 in the social world” of the Philippians, living the in the “most status-conscious city in the
Roman East” (Hellerman 2003, 427). These words must have challenged the “dominant view of
reality” for the citizens of Philippi who “valued their imperial connections, their privileges, and their
advantages as subjects” (Peterson 2004, 179-180) of the Emperor. In a community so highly socially
stratified as Philippi (Wortham 1996, 281) this “temporary role reversal” (Wortham 1996, 283) as
slave becomes an exemplary symbol of the mutuality and common humanity of all the members of the
early Christian community. The incarnational motif of the first value of kenosis finds it social scope
and dimension in a resolute identification with the lowest members in the social ladder within the
community. The values of servant posturing are communicated in the “denial of self-interest”, in the
“divestment of status and privilege” (Saunders 1998, 18).
A recent development in Pastoral Counseling (see Gau 2000, 403-409), building on the
kenotic theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar23 , aims to make use of this leadership value of servant
posturing to effect a therapeutic process where both therapist and client experience healing and
21
Our emphasis.
Disgrace; infamy; reproach mingled with contempt.
23
1905-1988 CE
22
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
11
enhancement that “diminishes ego and heightens self-awareness” (Gau 2000, 408). Gau (2000,
407) describes the process as follows: “The challenge for the pastoral psychotherapist is manifesting
the Christ gestalt24 to the client. The therapist does this by self-emptying and becoming a servant to
the client, speaking the client‟s language, and the focusing on the client‟s needs. Despite the client‟s
defensiveness, the therapist trusts the client‟s ability to merge, individuate, and learn emptiness and
receptivity. As the client comes to trust and internalize the therapist, the therapist is able to act form
within the client. Out of compassion, the therapist becomes poor so that the client might become rich
and absorbs the client‟s sin so that the client might know the goodness of God.” Despite the rather
heavy counseling language used in this section, the multiple applications of this approach in
leadership are quite evident. When leaders, having practiced kenosis, are able to enter the world of
their followers and take the posture of their servants, relationships of mutual trust and healing are
formed that in time removes the social and power distance between them in mutual liberation and
transformation. This radical approach of mutuality and service in leadership is one of risk-taking as
Gregerson (2003) so eloquently demonstrates in his premise of a theology of kenosis and risk taking.
Embracing Humanity (“being born in human likeness”)
Discussions on the interpretation of Christ “being found in appearance as a man” (σχήματι
εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος) in the Philippians hymn has been traditionally riddled with controversy and
rigorous debate (Howard 1978, 368). Re-reading the hymn as an ethical exemplum has opened a new
and promising avenue for a discussion on the social values that the hymn proposes in a society
riddled with social inequalities. Albert Nolan (1977, 135), in his response to apartheid in South Africa,
used the Philippians hymn to construct a new perspective in ontological Christology that demands a
new appreciation of the humanity of Christ and thus of others: “Whatever humanity and divinity may
mean in terms of a static philosophy of metaphysical natures, in religious terms for the man who
recognizes Jesus as his God, the human and the divine has been brought together in such a way that
they now represent one and the same religious value. In this sense Jesus‟ divinity is not something
totally different from His humanity. Jesus‟ divinity is the transcendent depth of His humanity. Jesus
was immeasurably more human than other men…”. Regardless of some of the obvious theological
difficulties of some of Nolan’s arguments, his Christology does open exciting possibilities in ethical
discussions in leadership and service.
In embracing the His own humanity and thus the humanity of others, Jesus “redefined
neighbor in terms of praxis, not propinquity 25” (Sorenson 2004, 461). This “praxis” is one of charity,
identification with the one being served and of authentic love. Vanstone (1978) has developed a
phenomenology of love in which he characterizes three characteristics of authentic love (Gregerson
24
A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties
cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
25
Propinquity can mean physical proximity, a kinship between people, or a similarity in nature between things.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
12
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
2003, 371-372). Authentic love is limitless, precarious and vulnerable (Vanstone 1978, 44-51).
Authentic love therefore does not impose boundaries on others (limitless) but “accepts without limit
the discipline of the circumstances” (Vanstone 1978, 44), is precarious in that it avoids the “the
distortion of possessive control” (Gregerson 2003, 372) and finally true love revels in being vulnerable
in that it gives the one loved a “power that could not otherwise be there” (Vanstone 1978, 51).
Whiteman (2003) in his work using the theology of the incarnation to link the disciplines of
Anthropology and Missiology makes the point that the incarnation is “about God becoming human, but
God did not become a generic human being. God became Jesus, the Jew, shaped and molded by firstcentury, Roman-dominated, Palestinian Jewish culture” (2003, 407). Whiteman (2003, 409) proposes
seven leadership practices and values statements informed by a Missiological and Anthropological
reading of the values imbedded in the Christian doctrine of the incarnation of Christ as found in the
Philippians hymn (also compare the thoughts of Bjork 1997:279-291 on this):
1. We start with people where they are, embedded in their culture, and this frequently requires
downward mobility on our part.
2. We take their culture seriously, for this is the context in which life has meaning for them.
3. We approach them as learners, as children, anxious to see the world from their perspective.
4. We are forced to be humble, for in their world of culture we have not yet learned the acquired
knowledge to interpret experience and to generate social behavior.
5. We must lay aside our own cultural ethnocentrism26, our positions of prestige and power.
6. To be incarnational means we will be very vulnerable; our defenses will have to go.
7. We make every effort to identify with people where they are, by living among them, loving
them, and learning from them.
The application of these values to values-based approaches to leadership, such as Servant leadership
is obvious and should be explored further.
Humility (“He humbled Himself”)
Theologians have traditionally linked the birth of Christ with His humility (MacLeod 2001,
319). Humility (ἐταπείνωσεν) as used in the Philippians hymn could be defined as being empty of ego
(Sorenson 2004, 458) and as Moore (2002, 13-14) elaborates on in his maxim: “Jealousy empty of
ego is passion. Inferiority empty of ego is humility. Narcissism empty of ego is love of one‟s soul.” The
humility of Christ is here linked with His appearance as a slave/man and His obedience unto death.
When people saw Him, they saw “ordinariness, nothing to distinguish Him physically, just ordinariness,
poverty, frailty, unpopularity and human rejection” (McLeod 2001, 325). This call to humility is the call
to not only identify with humanity and servant posturing but the voluntary rejection of symbols and
systems of power, prestige and privilege.
26
Ethnocentricity is the human tendency to see world primarily through the lens of one's own ethnic social history and culture.
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
13
This call to active humility finds its clearest dimension in association and service of others.
Billings (2004, 197), building on the incarnational theologies of Carl Barth, Orlando Costas and Jurgen
Moltmann, proposes the following ethical and missiological actions rooted in the kind of humility
advocated by the Philippians hymn: “In this way, the ethics of lowliness in the New Testament can
combine with a theology of the cross, which presents a stark challenge to the comfort ethos and
individualism that permeates much of middle-class Western culture. True freedom in Christ means the
freedom to enter into relationship with persons who bring one outside of one‟s socioeconomic or
religious comfort zone – freedom to break bread with the outcasts, the poor, and all of the other
„neighbors‟ that Christians are commanded to love. Yet this [is] 27 Christologically grounded humble
courage…”. This Christological “grounded humble courage”, to use the words of Billings (2004, 197) is
the foundation and ground that roots the alternative vision of humble leadership that the Philippians
hymn calls for.
Obedience (“and became obedient”)
The obedience (ὑπήκοος) of Christ in the Philippians hymn has been interpreted as His
voluntary decision not only to be obedient to God, but also “His choosing to a life of submission (for
others) and not one of dominance (over others)” (Heen 2004:150). Kress (1990, 69) in his quest to
formulate an ecumenical, perichoresic28, kenotic, trinitarian ontology for mission describes the value
of commitment or obedience as within the Philippians hymn as “the willingness and ability not to insist
on one‟s own being (identity, dignity, worth) at the expense of or to the detriment of others” (Kress
1990, 69).
It is important to note that the obedience of Christ in the hymn is unto death, in particular the
death on the cross (σταυροῦ), the “nadir of rejection, shame and humiliation” (Peterson 2004, 180).
By linking the obedience of Christ to His death on a cross, the Philippians hymn provides an
alternative, ethical vision of the apparent shame and dishonor that came with public crucifixion
(Hellerman 2003, 427). The connection between public and social shame and crucifixion in the
Roman world has been well documented (Hellerman 2003, 427-428). The ethical application is clear;
obedience and commitment to this alternative view of social order and reality might bring dishonor in
Roman Philippi, but great honor in Christ and therefore in ultimate reality. This call to obedience for
the “sake of others, not insisting on one‟s own position or promotion” (Peterson 2004, 180) carries
within it an ethical demand to the early Christians in Philippi to abandon the social games of honor
and shame and to follow new way of humane mutuality and humility set forth by the example of Christ.
Concluding Statements
27
28
My emphasis.
Perichoresic refers to the intensely intimate presence of the Trinity, without their dissolution into a monistic mass.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
14
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
Early Christianity established itself in a “remarkably antagonistic society in which the quest
for public honor dominated the behavioral priorities of males of nearly every social rank” (Hellerman
2003, 432). The Philippians hymn challenged the notions and principles of shame and honor of
Roman society by offering an alternative set of behaviors and values that stood on stark contrast with
those of the dominant culture. The hymn makes use of a cursus pudorum in which the voluntary
abasement, humility and obedience of Christ becomes an exemplum that offers a critique of the
tyrannies of the timocratic leadership style of Roman Philippi and offers an alternative vision of service
oriented leadership rooted in humility and common mutuality. It is clear that the Philippians hymn had
a difficult reception in the power-driven and honor-seeking Christian community of Philippi. Peterson
(2004, 180) sees a parallel between the values of our world and the early Christian community in
Philippi: “The world in which we live is no more welcoming of this story, no more open to this „mind‟,
than was Roman Philippi. We are inundated with narratives what promise life found in superior force,
in acquiring the best looks, the best bank accounts, the best weapons, the best „stuff‟. We are told
that life is secured by our winning – socially, economically, politically, religiously – and everyone else
losing. There is little room for the claim that the obedient death and resurrection of Jesus is the story
of God‟s ultimate loving victory, the defining reality for all the world.”
The story of Christ’s voluntary humiliation, service and obedience unto death was a
dangerous story to tell in Roman Phillip (Peterson 2004, 180) and it comes as little surprise that both
Paul and Philippians church suffered persecution there (Philippians 1:30). It remains a difficult and
dangerous story to tell, especially within the leadership domain, but one that offers the hope of the
returning to a humane, empowering approach to leadership communicated in humility and love.
“Go to the people,
live among them,
learn from them,
love them.
Start with what they know,
Build on what they have.”
- Whiteman (2003, 410)
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
15
Bibliography
Baker, J. A. 1970. The Foolishness of God. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
Barbour, I. 1990. Religion in an age of science. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Billings, J. T. 2004. Incarnational Ministry and Chriostology: A Re-appropriation of the Way of
Lowliness. Missiology Vol. XXXII, No.2, 187-201.
Black, D. A. 1995. The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Text-linguistics. Novum
Testamentum XXXVII, 1: 16-49.
Bjork, D. 1997. A Model for Analysis of Incarnational Ministry in Post-Christendom Lands. Missiology
25.3: 279-291.
Briggs, S. 1989. Can an Enslaved God Liberate? Hermeneutical Reflections on Philippians 2:6-11.
Semeia 47.1: 137-153.
Bruce, F. F. and Simpson, E.K. 1957. Commentary on Ephesians and Colossians. Grand Rapids: W. B.
Eerdmans.
Collins, A. Y. 2002. Psalms, Philippians 2:6-11 and the Origins of Christology. Biblical Interpretation
11,3/4: 361-372.
Cousar, C. B. 1998. Paul and the Death of Jesus. Interpretation 52.1: 38-52.
Cronin, K M 1992. Kenosis. Rockport: Element.
Fiddes, P S 2001. Creation out of Love. In Polkinghorne, J (Ed.), The Work of Love: Creation as
Kenosis (pp. 167-191). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Fitzmeyer, J. A. 1988. The Aramaic Background of Philippians 2:6-11. Catholic Biblical Quarterly
50.3:470-483.
Fowl, S. E. 1990. The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An analysis of the Function of the Hymnic
Material in the Pauline Corpus. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Gadamer, H. 1986. The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gadamer, H. 1989. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad.
Gau, J. V. 2000. The Gestalt of Emptiness/Receptivity” Christian Spirituality and Psychotherapy.
Journal of Pastoral Care 54.4, 403-409.
Geoffrion, T. C. 1993. The Rhetorical Purpose and the Political and Military Character of Philippians.
Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press.
Gibbs, J. G. 1970. The Relation between Creation and Redemption according to Phil. II 5-11. Novum
Testamentum 12.3: 270-283.
Gloer, W. H. 1984. Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content and Criteria for
Identification. Perspectives in Religious Studies 11.2:115-132.
Gregerson, N. H. 2003. Risk and Religion: Toward a Theology of Risk Taking. Zygon, vol. 38, no.2: 355376.
Guthrie, D. 1970. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Hamm, D. 1997. One Hymn says it all. America, 177(5):31.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
16
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
Harrington, D. J. 2006. The Dangerous Memory of Jesus. America 194(12): 1-2.
Heen, E. M. 2004. Phil 2:6-11 and Resistance to local Timocratic Rule: Isa Theo and the Cult of the
Emperor in the East, in Horsely, R. A. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. New York: Trinity
Press International.
Heintz, M. Imitating God in the Epistle to Diogenetus. Journal of Early Christian Studies 12:1, 107-119.
Hellerman, J. H. 2003. The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Philippi, Part 1.
Bibliotheca Sacra 160.639:321-336.
Hellerman, J. H. 2003. The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Philippi, Part 1.
Bibliotheca Sacra 160.640:421-433.
Horsely, R. A. 2004. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. New York: Trinity Press International.
Howard, G. 1978. Phil. 2:6-11 and the Human Christ. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40(3): 368-387.
Karecki, M and Wroblewski, S 2000. Franciscan spirituality: Franciscan study guide series: Volume I.
Jeppestown: The Franciscan Institute of Southern Africa.
Karris, R. J. 1996. A Symphony of New Testament Hymns. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.
Kennedy, G. A. 1984. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Raleigh: University
of North Carolina Press.
Kourie, C 1993. The Kenotic Mysticism of Clare of Assisi in the light of inter-religious dialogue. S.A.
Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 3 (1), pp. 124-140.
Kress, R. 1990. Unity in Diversity and Diversity in Unity: Towards an Ecumenical Perichoresic Kenotic
Trinitarian Ontology. Dialogue and Alliance 4.3, 66-70)
Ledoux, C M 1997. Clare of Assisi. Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press.
Martin, R. P. 1997. A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the setting of
Early Christian Worship. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
MacLeod, D. J. 2001. Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians 2:5-8. Bibliotheca
Sacra 158: 308-330.
MacLeod, D. J. 2001. The Exaltation of Christ: An exposition of Philippians 2:9-11. Bibliotheca Sacra
158: 437-450.
McClendon, J. W. 1991. Philippians 2:5-11. Review and Expositor 88.4:439-444.
Merton, T. 1966. Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander. New York: Doubleday.
Moore, T. 2002. The Soul‟s Religion. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Moule, C. F. D. 1970. Further Reflections on Phil. 2:5-11, in Gasque, W. W. and Martin, R. P. Apostolic
History and the Gospels: Biblical and Theological Essays
Presented to F.F. Bruce. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Nolan, A. 1977. Jesus before Christianity. Cape Town: David Phillips.
Oakes, P. 2001. Philippians: From People to Letter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papanikolaou, A. 2003. Person, Kenosis and Abuse: Hans Urs von Balthasar and Feminist Theologies
in Conversation. Modern Theology 19 (1), pp. 1-26.
Biblical Perspectives – May 2007
17
Parris, D. P. 2002. Imitating the Parables: Allegory, Narrative and the Role of Mimesis. Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 25.1: 33-53.
Peterlin, D. 1995. Paul‟s Letter to the Philippians in the Light of Disunity in the Church. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.
Raguin, Y. 1973. I am sending You (John 22:21): Spirituality of the Missioner. Manila: East Asian
Pastoral Institute.
Sanders, J. A. 1969. Dissenting Deities and Philippians 2:1-11. Journal of Biblical Literature 88.3:
279-290.
Saunders, S. P. 1998. Philippians and Galatians. London: Westminster John Knox Press.
Selwyn, E. G. 1969. The First Epistle of Peter. New York: St. Martins.
Silva, M. 1992. Philippians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Sorenson, R. L. 2004. Kenosis and Alterity in Christian Spirituality. Psychoanalytic Psychology. Vol. 21,
No. 3, 458-462.
Söring, J. 2003. The Kenotic Convict: a Divertissement on Contemporary Contemplative Spirituality
and its Social Context. The Merton Annual 16 (2003), pp.152-171.
Stagg, F. 1980. The Mind of Christ Jesus: Philippians 1:27-2:18. Review and Expositor 77.3:337.
Szabolcs, N. 2003. The Ministry of Reconciliation through Kenosis. Mozaik 2003 (1), pp. 8-10.
Talbert, C. H. 1967. The Problem of Pre-existence in Philippians 2:6-11. Journal of Biblical Literature
86.2: 141-153.
Vanstone, W. H. 1978. The Risk of Love. New York: Oxford University Press.
Whiteman, D. L. 2003. Anthropology and Mission: The Incarnational Connection. Missiology 31.4,
397-415.
Williams, D. K. 2002. Enemies of the Cross of Christ: The Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in
Philippians. London: Sheffield Academic Press.
Wisniewski, D. 2003. Salesian Images of Love in Creation: Divine Kenosis in the Spirituality of Francis
de Sales. Unpublished paper delivered at Works of Love: Scientific and Religious Perspective
on Altruism Conference, May, 2003.
Wortham, R. A. 1996. Christology a Community Identity in the Philippians Hymn: The Philippians Hymn
as Social Drama (Philippians 2:5-11). Perspectives in Religious Studies 23:3: 269-287.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
18
Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership
Appendix A:
The Text of the Philippians Hymn (2:5-11)
I
Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 26th edition:
2:5
τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
2:6
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
2:7
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος:
καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
2:8
ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.
2:9
διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα,
2:10
ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ
καταχθονίων,
2:11
καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ
πατρός.
II
New Revised Standard Version of the Philippians Hymn (2:5-11):
2:5
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
2:6
who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be
exploited,
2:7
but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being
found in human form,
2:8
he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death even death on a cross.
2:9
Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,
2:10
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the
earth,
2:11
and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.